Talk:Anthony Weiner

Inordinate amount of information on photo scandal in introduction

The mention of this in the introduction should be reduced to a sentence or two. It really needs its own section. Perhaps something like:

On June 16, 2011, Anthony Weiner announed his resignation from Congress after admittedly sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to several women via social media, and enduring calls from top Democrats in the House, and President Obama, to resign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstrosser (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Twitter photo scandal

Time for a major re-write. Weinergate is now far and away the most notable thing about anthony weiner and it should be central to this article.24.111.211.207 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this not protected yet? 76.250.130.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

Why is this not up. And more importantly why is his page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The information on the twitter scandal is not there because when it was added it was not properly sourced. The page is locked because unregistered users were adding the information you are asking about repeadtedly in violation of the biographies of living people policy. If you can find reliable sources that discuss the scandal and show that he did send the tweets, then use {{edit semi-protected}} with the information you want added and the reliable sources that verify the information. GB fan (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new to this place, or that is a rhetorical question. Any unpleasant truth about a leftist is immediately and permanently suppressed. If you want the facts, go elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.199 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no suppression of any information. The information was writtten in a neutral blub with reliable sources to verify the information and it has beewn in the article for over a day. GB fan (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ROTFLOL! Good one! Thanks. That will keep me laughing the rest of the day. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why must it be shown that HE sent them? The reality is it is a verified account that HE is known to send personal messages from. Plenty of sources have demonstrated he has a history of conversing people people he folllows on twitter in direct messages. It is rather obvious he meant that crouch shot to be a direct message. Additionally his initial twitter claim was his Facebook account was hack and not his Twitter account. Seems odd and thus the scandal.

BTW there are plenty of reliable source covering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So write a neutral blurb that is supported by reliable sources, then use {{edit semi-protected}} and ask for it to be inserted into the article. Make sure you specify exactly what you want the blurb to say and you give the reliable sources that support the information. If you include personal opinions or information not supported by the reliable sources you give it will not be added. There is also a possibility it won't be added because at this point it might be considered just to be a news item and not encyclopedic. good luck. GB fan (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe the latest additions to this section are appropriate. They appear to be written in a manner to accuse Weiner of hiding something. There is no requirement for someone to report hacking to police of the FBI. He has repeatedly said that he did not send the pictures. Whether the pictures are actually of him are not material if he did not send them. GB fan (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw some serious bias in there, so I deleted a bit of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Material" to what? That a congressman has a photo of his junk floating around is part of the story, whether he sent it or not. And... that it exists at all adds supports (in part) to the entire story. I added back the reference that he didn't report it as a crime. That also adds creedence. Previously, the article said he'd hired an investigator to "look into" it - suggesting that he was doing everything he could to "find the real killers." Obviously, that's not the case - as most of the media have reported. John2510 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone hoping for an explicit photograph will be disappointed, so a more accurate description than "lewd photo" was given per WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not possible to cite the yfrog statement as it is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, but it is at yfrog dot com/message/thread/id/1_76137409431089152 . One consequence of this affair is that e-mail uploading of photographs to yfrog is disabled at the moment. This article takes a look at some of the security issues involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this yfrog reference adds to the article. Among other things, the yfrog statement is somewhat defensive and evasive. Giving Wiener the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure it matters whether there was a yfrog security breach, per se, or someone simply guessed his password. If either of those two things occured, then he's not responsible. John2510 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What has caused the fuss outside the United States is that people are unable to use yfrog e-mail at the moment. Anyone trying to post an image receives an e-mail from is-support@imageshack.us saying: "Email posting to yfrog is currently disabled". To be fair, TwitPic uses a similar system, except that it involves a four digit PIN number. In either case, a person who knew the address would be able to post an image without the user's consent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

International fuss about yfrog is of no concern at this BLP. The article you link yourself shows how irresponsibly easy yfrog made it for someone simply to guess a user's access code, so your addition of yfrog's self-interested statement that has nothing do do with this incident implies about this incident the exact opposite of the content of the littlegreenfootballs article. It's a little bit like saying "absolutely nobody broke in" because they merely latched, but not locked, their door. Abrazame (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that someone hacked/guessed the e-mail address, this could just as easily have happened at TwitPic or Flickr, which have similar systems for mobile users. This happens all the time with bank ATM machines, it is not a big deal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

re this edit: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Please bear this in mind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe it did start being a photo of mine and now looks something different or maybe it is from another account." This was removed as being undue and missing the point (but has now been restored by another editor). Whether it's a picture of him or not, and whether he admits it's a picture of him or not, are pretty much THE points here. This incident will doubtless be a signficant part of Wiener's biography (if not his defining moment), and it's not undue. John2510 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As a non-US resident, I am not the least bit interested in what Anthony Weiner does with his spare time. However, his choice of words with the underpants photograph looks like classic terminological inexactitude.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The "maybe it did start being a photo of mine" bit is reported in Politico, a top-quality source. Drrll (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The British Member of Parliament Chris Bryant did something similar to this alleged incident in 2003.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Have unilaterally removed the Twitter section, reducing it to one sentence in the Personal Life section. Wikipedia is not a news site. This is an overblown media scandal that will end up as no more than a minor footnote in Weiner's career. See WP:NOT#NEWS as previously linked, and WP:UNDUE. Discuss here before reverting, inclusion is the onus of those wishing to include. GlassCobra 03:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I object strenuously to the removal of the Twitter Scandal section. This is an unfolding event that may lead to the termination of the Congressman's career. It needs to be retained; vetted for accuracy and balance; and updated as required. The humor of the situation should be an integral part, I have suggested an addition under "Weinergate", a new discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of WP:CRYSTAL in saying that this "may lead to the termination of [his] career". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that. I can also accept that it may not be appropriate as WP:BREAKING NEWS. However, the unilateral edit by GlassCobra is not balanced in that it does not adequately discuss the controvery over the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I should clarify why this is a controversy. Congressman Weiner has not addressed several issues fundamental to the event. 1) Is that a photograph of himself? (This may be irrelevant, but remains an open question) 2) If he believes that his account was hacked, why has he refused to call in law enforcement? 3) Why has he not (as of June 2, 2011) addressed the first two issues? --WriterIN (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner has stated that his refusal to open an investigation is because he does not wish to waste public funding. He's treating this as exactly what it is, an extremely minor event worthy of nothing more than one line in his encyclopedia entry. This is not a controversy, and it will not be given any undue coverage here. GlassCobra 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You're drawing a lot of conclusions and applying personal opinion here about it being an "extremelyl minor event," which appear inconsistent with the consensus generally, and (more importantly) here on WP. This isn't properly excluded under WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't and announcement or other item that would fit the criteria. We can apply common sense, and not wait for history books to come out before deciding what is a signficant (and WP-worthy) event. If it wanes in significance, it can be altered as appropriate. John2510 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That statement is controversial in and of itself and rightfully belongs in the entry. GlassCobra, with respect, you should recuse yourself from the discussion if you cannot be objective. At this juncture you appear (and remember that appearance, while not neccessarily reflective of reality, still demands attention) to be more concerned with protecting the Congressman's reputation than producing a balanced and objective article. His reputation deserves protection, but only to the extent that it *deserves* protection.--WriterIN (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly notable enough for a mention, although it should be brief and simple.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my most recent comment under "Weinergate". Having two separate discussions about the same thing (three if you count the penis controversy) is proving unwieldy.--WriterIN (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

After much wrestling with the format of the reference line (first time for everything) I added a reference to Nancy Pelosi's opening of a house ethics committee investigation. I also changed the title of this discussion section to match the actual section in the article and removed the unsigned gloating message (ALL IN CAPS, sign of high intelligence there) from the top of this section.--WriterIN (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

They can try and sensor all they want to protect one of their own but his political career is over just like John Edwards and that will be in the first section within days.98.198.238.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry to say that I won't be participating in any further editing of this page. I'm not comfortable with the rather sensationalist treatment of the current scandal. Yes, it's important. Yes it should be covered in its entirety as the story continues to evolve and it should be NPOV as much as that is possible in this situation. What I'm not comfortable with is the tendency to put a reference to it in as many sections as possible, including the lead. Best wishes,--WriterIN (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We just need a clear historical record documenting what Anthony Weiner did, and allow people to make up their own minds. I think the most obvious deriliction is not the act itself (sexting or whatever) but the significant lack of judgement in how he went about it, and then how he covered it up. Makes for a great game, but not for a great congressman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.46.237 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the article lead have any mention of the scandal?

There is a disagreement on whether it should. My personal stance is that there should be a brief one or two sentence mention of the scandal in the lead section, as it frankly currently comprises a large portion of what he is known for. The concern was raised (see my talk page, for example) that this might violate WP:UNDUE. I don't agree that it's an issue in this case, but it's certainly a legitimate concern. Let's try to hash this out here, get more input, and avoid edit warring. Kansan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Kansan, I salute you for opening this item in discussion. That's the way we SHOULD be doing it. You have my enthusiastic permission to copy our discussion on your talk page into this section so everyone can participate.--WriterIN (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you guys talking – please honor 3RR. Grahamboat (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In general I would say that the details of the scandal do not belong in the lead, however the call for a House Ethics investigation by Nancy Pelosi would be appropriate. See Mark Souder, Chris Lee, and Charlie Rangel articles for similar treatment. Grahamboat (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be no doubt that basic information about the scandal, his refusal to resign, calls for him to resign and the ethics investigation are lead material. Per WP:LEAD, "the LEAD should summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." This is a bio of a man who has been a politician his entire adult life and this controversy threatens to ruin his career. Therefore it is very significant in terms of his own life. Furthermore, it is a huge controversy to the media. It has been reported by multiple reliable sources, every day for two weeks. To claim that it is undue emphasis to have 2 or 3 sentences about the twitters and the reactions and ongoing consequences to Weiner's career is basically absurd. Per WP BLP policy -"When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm." Right now it is being completely suppressed. The policy demands objective clinical type writing and letting the "facts speak for themselves". The removed material did just that, so I am restoring it. KeptSouth (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Text of info restored, plain, objective, succinct and referenced: On June 6, 2011, Weiner admitted to sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to several young female "followers" on Twitter, both before and after his marriage. Weiner has said he will not resign his office. House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, called for an ethics investigation. --KeptSouth (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"This controversy threatens to ruin his career" is precisely the sort of POV we need to avoid insinuating into this WP:BLP, much less its lead. I agree that at the moment a brief couple of sentences of incontrovertible material about this episode belong in the lead, and have edited it to reflect what I think we can all agree on as being the essential facts relevant to the lead of his bio; as such, we do not need references in the lead. Anybody interested in the detail will have no trouble finding the section devoted to it in this brief biography, and anybody interested in clicking to the other article (should it survive its current AfD) can do so there. Abrazame (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely misconstruing what I said. I was explaining a rationale for including the information - I was not proposing to insert that information (that the controversy threatens to ruin Weiner's career) in the lead. No, we cannot all agree that references do not belong in the lead, if only because removing the references will result in quick removal of the text as unreferenced. Also, WP:LEAD specifically provides for referencing: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate" --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not "entirely misconstruing". It's irresponsible to say things like what you have now reiterated even on the talk page. WP:BLP applies to biography talk pages as well. The claim that you're not suggesting putting that into the article is all the more reason not to say it, not carte blanche to say it twice. You are misconstruing what I said, I didn't say we could all agree the references do not belong, I said we can all agree on those two statements as relevant to the lead and I said we do not need references for incontrovertible material referenced elsewhere in the article. It's not a trick or a ploy, it's saying that when you reference a statement in one place you needn't reference its repetition elsewhere in the same small article, while that article body content should be where someone can expect to find references for everything we declare about the topic. Abrazame (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am reluctantly responding to rebut your totally unfounded and mistaken assertions. You are apparently claiming I am violating BLP policy on this talk page, yet I have made no absolutely no remarks that violate BLP policy. You are complaining about one phrase, one argument I made about relevancy for the lead --that "this controversy threatens to ruin his career", which is actually so uncontroversial that numerous reliable sources have made identical or very similar statements. Here are three examples, but there are many more. "Anthony Weiner's career likely is ruined by Twitter pic scandal" New York Daily News; "Rep. Anthony Weiner doing his best to let lewd Twitter photo scandal sink his political career" New York Daily News; Political notebook "his political career in extreme jeopardy...", The Boston Globe via The Associated Press. Each of these articles have material are suitable for inclusion in the main Weiner article or the scandal fork, or as external links. Because reliable sources are saying this, per WP:V and WP:BLP and WP:TALK it is not be improper to add such phrases and discuss such views in the body of this article it, and it is most certainly not improper on this talk page discussion.

You also seem to want to continue to argue against having references in the lead. I agree that in many instances they are not necessary because the inline references are given farther down in the article. However, this is an article with controversial elements and several removals of relevant information have already been made by several editors. WP policy on LEAD says the lead "must be carefully sourced as appropriate". It's certainly appropriate to provide references in the lead, where as here, the information and its placement have been controversial and have been repeatedly reverted. Removing the inline reference tags is simply asking for further reversions of the content by editors who could rightly say the material is poorly sourced because BLP policy actually requires the immediate removal of poorly sourced or unsourced content. I am amazed that having a few references in the lead under these circumstances is still a point of contention for you, but perhaps my restatement has aided you in your understanding. --Regards--09:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not "continuing to argue", I was correcting your characterization of what I said. Ref it, don't ref it, whatever, but get the editorial responsibility that Wikipedia is not a place to throw up everything we can cite to an RS, particularly in regards to a living person. Abrazame (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I support mention of it in the lead, and also think that brief mention to the related poll results should go in the lead as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Related poll results about what? Abrazame (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As to whether New Yorkers think he should resign.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the scandal should have at least a sentence in the lead, since if the now separated Anthony Weiner photo scandal were merged back in in full it would be the largest section of the article.

I still don't think that it belongs in the lead right now...and I compared Weiner's page to Rangel, Souder and Lee. Rangel has a para in the lead for a completed episode, including official action by the House. Souder has a partial sentence mention but only because that's what ended his political career. Lee, interestingly, has no mention in the lead at all. Once all the facts are in, including the results of the House investigation, I fully support a full paragraph or more summarizing the entire affair. But until then it's just duplicative of what's in the proper section. Good luck with it. As I stated above, I won't be making any further edits myself, but I will continue to contribute to the discussion.--WriterIN (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede without the scandal material is currently only 8 sentences. Adding 2 sizable sentences about the unresolved scandal seems pretty unnecessary at the current stage of the event. With the current coverage of basic bio information in the lede, the weight of the lede would be pretty badly biased towards the recent event, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

BigKHex took out any mention of what the scandal was about. We should, at the very least, state what the nature of the scandal was, and we might as well if we're going to mention it to begin with. I suggest that the previous version be reinstated. Kansan (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Medeis beat me to it. BigKHex seems to want to sanitize the lead. The consensus here has been to include some of the scandal in the lead.Grahamboat (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The underlying issue here is that this is a comprehensive uncensored encyclopedia. When the subject himself admits the acts there's no point in a summary in the lead which barely manages even to say the "something happened to someone". That being said, we don't need more than a full sentence or two in the lead or mention of the objective facts in the subsection. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the incident is likely to have long term repercussions for Weiner's political career, a brief mention in the WP:LEAD is justified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a question, if the incident ends up not having long term repercussions. do we then take it back out of the lead? GB fan (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is widely agreed that this incident has wrecked Weiner's chances of running for office in the New York City mayoral election, 2013. Unless voters are very forgiving and have short memories, it is hard to see how this would not become a key issue during the campaign.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice way to avoid the question. GB fan (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not avoid the question. To coin a phrase, I cannot say with certitude what long term impact the incident will have on Weiner's career. It is, though, a defining moment similar to the Lewinsky scandal, which has its own article and is mentioned in the WP:LEAD of Bill Clinton. The brief mention in the lead here is currently sufficient, but it can always be edited at a later date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe I need to explain what I am asking. You said it belongs in the lead because it is likely to effect his career in the future. Because of that I asked if it doesn't effect his career should it come out of the lead. I did not ask you to predict what willl happen but to continue on with your own statement. GB fan (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The coverage of the incident is enough for a brief mention in the WP:LEAD. Since there is no rush and consensus can change, the part about Weinergate could be trimmed or removed if other users thought that it was necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GB fan makes a good point, for several reasons, and I'd like to point out two. Firstly, we are not here to WP:CRYSTAL BALL about the effect of personal life on career or, I think more to the point, to participate in the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That a few wags are suggesting impact on his career the day he came out with his admission is not the sort of thing that gets put into an encyclopedic biography. It's also not something that gets put into the talk page of one. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. If, like User:ianmacm, your assertion is that what you are saying on this page has nothing to do with why we should have something in the article, then you should bloody well not be saying it here. This is not a blog or a chat room or a water cooler or a bar, it's an editorial discussion, and we need to exercise some self-restraint and responsibility. We've all made some tongue-in-cheek comments about what we should call this, what we should say about that. But we are crossing a line when we are promulgating prognostication about the end of someone's career. The whole point about that is that if and when such a thing were to evidence itself in real historical events, rather than merely someone yammering on CNN or blathering on a blog, then there would be notable people addressing the perceived and actual reasons — actual as in exit polls of people in a primary, or highly notable statements by the powers that be, and actual as it actually had an effect, not merely was supposed to have one.

And as long as this thread has gone there, I will point out that after several allegations of actual affairs, even the Monica Lewinsky scandal didn't end Bill Clinton's career, nor did it prevent him from having a major international influence since leaving office, nor did it hold back his wife's political career. There was an actual naked and erect penis there, too, even if we only heard about it every day for three years and didn't actually have to look at the pixels. Ian, you did avoid the question, and you are avoiding responsibility for littering the page with random, self-contradictory commentary. One minute it's likely to affect his career, the next minute its akin to the actual affairs of Bill Clinton, which did not. We have to exercise some self control and restraint here and remember what we're here to do, which is determine what will appear in the article and how, not spin stream-of-consciousness opinion.

But this is about the lead, so let's stay on point there. To the recent edit, I will point out that nobody has responded to the justification User:BigK HeX used. He wasn't "sanitizing", as someone mischaracterized, he was correcting WP:UNDUE. The way to handle this is to source details of Weiner's notability — his career and impact as a congressman — that belong in the lead. Abrazame (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Abrazame continues to act as a cheerleader for Anthony Weiner. I'll skip over the incivility, but will point out that all Wikipedia articles change with time. I'm not hell bent on mentioning this in the lead, but a brief mention seems justified at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe Abrazame is cheerleading for the congressman. I believe he has argued for scrupulous adherence to BLP for both the congressman and his paramours. If he's been uncivil, I haven't seen it. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You’re right Abrazame the details of Weiner's notability belong in the lead. Unfortunately, the most notable detail about Weiner’s career is the scandal he admitted creating. Once the matter degenerated into emailing nude images of genitals to women Weiner admitted he did not know, including their ages, it certainly became a major issue. He is not well known outside of NYC Metro and liberal talk shows.

In reply to GB fan’s question: it don’t matter how it affects his career, reelection will not mean vindication. The scandal will still be a defining moment of his life; ala Ted Kennedy.

Regarding KeptSouth’s assertion that ethics investigations usually don’t go anywhere; where’s the proof? It is very rare when the defendant’s own party initiates the inquiry. The last big case was Charlie Rangel. Therefore Pelosi’s statement belongs in the lead.Grahamboat (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The calls for Weiner’s resignation from Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Steve Israel plus Weiner’s leave of absence should end any controversy over the scandal material being included in the lead. Grahamboat (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Running poll coverage

The poll results don't belong in this article, they have nothing to do with actual objective developments regarding Weiner. They fit quite well in the sub-article, and we don't need to add every new trivial and tangential development to both. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have quite the opposite impression. They fit quite well in an article that discusses his congressional career. Trivial and tangential? Hardly. Quite the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll results tell us nothing about objective truth or what Weiner himself has actually done. They tell us about the opinions of a questionable sample of inexpert layman unable to do more than say yes or no to questions the actual nature of which we do not even know. If we want to put poll results on a BLP we need to say exactly who was asked exactly what. Not privy to such details, we have no business presenting such things on a BLP as if they were meaniongful, verifiable facts. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I barely know how to begin to respond to that, other than to say that this is not a trial -- you seem to believe that the criteria for evidence to be admitted at a trial is the criteria for notability for this wp article. The polls are verifiable RS reports that are clearly notable in the context of this article. That is the standard.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche you can’t cherry pick polls. If you want to include the Marist poll, then the WABC-TV and SurveyUSA poll here, which shows the opposite results, should be included for balance. Either way neither belongs in the lead – more appropriate under Sexting scandal Grahamboat (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO polls of any nature do not belong anywhere in this bio. Grahamboat (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add all polls -- the most important poll, however, if we only have one is clearly the poll of his constituents, since it is a poll as to whether he should step down from representing those constituents. This is (obviously, I would think) of great importance -- whether the people he represents think he should continue to represent them.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

POV attacks on Breitbart; Edit warring; What the RSs say

I have to strongly object to this edit [1] changing the description of Andrew Breitbart from conservative commentator and internet mogul to "blogger". The man owns several websites, writes for the Washington Times, worked fro Drudge and helped establish the the Huffington Post. Calling him a blogger is an obvious attempt to belittle and discredit him. Please revert the edit. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that simply refering to him as "blogger" does not accurately describe him, however on the other side "Internet Mogul" seems a bit of a peacock term. Borrowing from the Andrew Breitbart article I would suggest: publisher and conservative commentator.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No immediate objections so I'll try adding that to the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a much better way of describing him. Let people determine relevant facts about him in other places. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The RSs overwhelmingly refer to him as "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbert", when reporting on him relative to this matter. See The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS, The Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Forbes, The Hill, The Daily Mail, The Toronto Star, Salon, WPIX ... etc. Whatever μηδείς's POV, that is not reason to stray from following the RSs -- that is how we stay away from POV editing on wp. Saying that the description used by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes (among others) is meant to discredit him seems less than credible.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing some that do include publisher.CNN, Fox. You are correct though, it does seem like most articles are using 'conservative blogger' as a stand alone description.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look, Cube. Yes -- before I inserted the phrase, I first looked at what the media used, to see if there was a consensus description (as you point out, we never see unanimous descriptions). Here we have an overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity), and it does not appear to be affected by the political bent of the publications.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that "blogger" doesn't really fully encompass what he does, if the vast majority of reliable sources use the term, we need to go with it, in my view. Kansan (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that we cannot explain he is a publisher and commentator because he also has a blog. Nothing requires us to use a vague shorthand term when accurate and well sourced specific and relevant descriptions are available. When it is necessary, those publications which may refer to him as a blogger do describe the fact that Brietbart is a published author, a conservative activist and commentator, and the owner of several financially successful websites. And those are the facts that are relevant here. Our readers need to know that this is an influential person with an agenda and the means to carry it out, not just someone with a free google blogspot account. No one contests the descriptions of him as a commentator, activist and internet publisher. No source argues he is not these things. Nor is there any lack of space for this material in this article. Removing the information serves no purpose, and no wikipedia rationale has been provided for this purposeful vagueness. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia Please provide one reason why our readers should not be told the profession and agenda of the man who revealed the scandal? μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We follow the RSs. That's how we avoid inserting our own POV. If you dislike the way that the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Fox News (as well as other RSs, overwhelmingly) describe him in relation to this matter, that is more an issue for you to raise with them than here, perhaps.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: What might be the mostest NPOV shorthand designation-of-profession for Andy Breitbart?

Template:Rfcid Both poles of the inherent "Either/Or" here would be less than optimum per wp:NPOV, in my opinion... although I should probably explain that the afore-mentioned Either applies to "WP's terming the um gentleman over-complimentarily," while the afore-menioned Or applies to "WP's damning Mr. Breitbart with overly faint praise." To explain: seemingly, either one of the following two randomly chosen designations would work just fine. In my opinion.

A) blogger

B) political expose author

--Nonetheless, choice (A), blogger, would slightly damn with faint praise whereas choice (B), political expose author, would slightly err too much on the side of overly complimentaryness. In my opinion. In any case, I've not come up with something off the top of my head that would achieve the perfect kind of balance, if that target is even possible to hit. Any suggestions? or do I worry too much about minutiae?

ps - This edit seems NOT particularly UNreasonable...and certainly not an obvious "vandalism." In my opinion.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• We've already discussed this here (where, at the end of the day, Medeis had zero support for his view ... and yet he still to this day is editing against consensus). And here. And here. And Medeis has been warned (as reflected in part there, in part on his talk page, and in part elsewhere) to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, but instead seems to think that simply keeping under 3 RRs per day allows him to continue making hte same edit warring changes, despite the existing reaction that he has received ... even Cube, who initially agreed with him, looked at the RSs and changed his mind. Still, even now, Medeis persists with this disruptive behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Epeefleche, I've moved this section up to consolidate the thread...and I've also converted it to an RfC.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)d

It appears that the above section argues for well-sourced designations, yet you delete the description and source user Medeis provided. Was his edit not the kind of particular compromise you were looking for, Epeefleche? and, if so, why not? (Or am I missing something in my analysis here?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This[2] Google News query demonstrates my sense that "conservative blogger" is appropriate. I cannot agree that this label represents a POV attack against Breitbart. I find it neutral, descriptive, and consice. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative blogger is fine. The issue may be moot if Weiner resigns- see Weiner has not resigned yet. Grahamboat (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/Liberal Classic, Grahamboat, Cube Lurker, and Kansan. And the multitude of RSs that use this description -- it appears (after a duly diligent search) to be the RS description of choice. The consensus among editors is manifest. Yet Medeis keeps up his slow edit war against this consensus. And just left an innappropriate 3RR warning on my page for my respecting consensus here. This follows his having brought a baseless 3RR complaint against me, which was unanimously dismissed.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I added "journalist and" to "conservative blogger" after reading this discussion. The sense that I got from the conversation was that "conservative blogger" was felt by some to be a derogatory term (or at least semanticaly negative). It occured to me that what he does is, in fact, journalism, albeit at more of a Geraldo Rivera level than a Walter Kronkite level, but journalism nontheless. When I made the change it felt to me that I had successfully balanced mild negative semantic content with mild positive semantic content and improved accuracy. Someone reveeted it, which is fine, but niow you need to back up your reversion with a cogent argument for doing so.--WriterIN (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is at odds with the consensus views, as expressed by Liberal Classic, Grahamboat, Cube Lurker, Kansan, and me above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Does "conservative blogger" have negative connotations I am unaware of? In the context of the scandal, Breitbart's involvement was posting a leaked image to his political blog. Liberal Classic (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving things where they are, but "blogger" has mild negative semantic content compared to "journalist", say. In this case what Brietbart did *was* journalism. He developed a source and wrote a story. The only real difference was that it was self-published, hence "blogger". Since many (if not most) blogs are more op-ed than news, it reduces the journalistic nature of what he did. I'm aware that in the past he has manipulated news for his own purposes, but this time he played it straight. The "conservative" part is also mildly problematic as it implies that he had an ulterior motive for publishing the story. If we turn the situation around 180 degrees, we would then assume that a "liberal blogger" would have an ulterior motive to bury the story (neither of which are true). Puts me in kind of a quandary. Yes, the guy is a self-aggrandizing tool, but like I said before, this time he actually acted like a journalist.

Great illustration of Peter and the Wolf Syndrome. He's spent so much time crying Wolf that when he actually landed a hot story, people's (both conservative and liberal) initial reaction were to disbelieve it as just another play for attention.--WriterIN (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Two points:

  - First, per basic guidelines about the use of editing rationales and discussions of content, the argument or rationale of "This version has consensus" is virtually meaningless and does absolutely nothing but uselessly move metaphorical soundwaves through the air. Any current version in mainspace on Wikipedia is due to current consensus. However, when RfC's are posted, they are designed to talk about the issues at hand, citing policies and principles, not continue on with discussing any editors conduct (which, for those new to Wikipedia, are not to be discussed on article talkpages in any case but at, eg, wp:ANI). Let's all agree, that different editors may honestly disagree about what is the most NPOV. This present case is difficult to ajudicate, I believe, but we can probably come to some kind of reasonable compromise if no side insists on their version completely holding the day (unless, of course, a vast majority of editors agree with that particular version by way of citing guidelines while not relying on personal preference, not making the discussion about editors' conduct, and not merely citing "This is censensus; arrrggghhh."

  - OK, with that throat-clearing: Not to cite wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but only as a possible help to think through these issues: note that (Mister B's comrade in arms) James O'Keefe's blp has this as the first sentence of its lede: "James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos of public figures that were shot undercover." And the last sentence of the lede reads, "He has been called a guerrilla documentarian, a gonzo journalist and a conservative provocateur." That is pretty long-wided but apparently was the best they could do over there. Here is the talkpage discussion there: here and here (etc.) Hope this helps--well, if anyone should wanna scan the gist of those threads, I suppose.....--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, this excercise is probably just for myself, but I went ahead and looked up introctory descriptive phrase pertaining to Breitbart in whatever places I first surfed to for both conservative and (it's hoped) neutral sources. Here goes:

Conservative

1. National Review: Profile: "publisher, columnist, and blogger, Andrew Breitbart is the founder of Breitbart.com, Breitbart.tv, Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, and Big Peace."
2. [Jul 14, 2008 Weekly Standard]: "Andrew Breitbart, author of "Hollywood Interrupted," Drudge Report contributor and founding magnate of the Breitbart-dot-empire"
3. June 17, 2011 WSJ newsblog: "conservative online publisher Andrew Breitbart"
4. Oct 16, 2009 WSJ print: "Although Mr. Breitbart practices a form of journalism, as an independent operator he moves freely across boundaries that would constrain a traditional newsman."
5. 3 Sep 2010 Dallas Morning News (like the WSJ, known to have a somewhat conservative editorial bent): "conservative website operator Andrew Breitbart"
6. Jan 6, 2010, (N.H.) Union Leader: "Andrew Breitbart, publisher of Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv"
7. July29, 2010, Union Leader: Roger Simon: "...when a conservative 'journalist' by the name of Breitbart explicitly lies to the public in the service of his ideology"

Libertarian

1. Oct 7, 2009 Reason magazine "Andrew Breitbart (a friend of mine) is nobody's Pauline Kael, yet he produces bits of real-world journalism that eventually The New York Timeses of the world have to catch up to."

Neutral (or unknown political slant)

1. June 7, 2011 Columbia Journalism Review: "Perhaps I have been swayed in a conversation I recently had with Breitbart. He is a silver tongue extraordinaire and a savvy new media prophet. I spoke to him earlier this year for a magazine profile I am working on and we got to discussing the kind of reporting he does, why he does it, and why he is brazen about the ideology behind it. I did not challenge him on much—the subject of the interview was not Breitbart or his methods—but some of what he told me says much about his approach to news. "
2. 5.31.2011 Rawstory.com: "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart"
3. June 8, 2011 TheWrap.com: "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart"
4. Feb 3, 2010 Poyter.org: "conservative blogger"

Probably an iffy conclusion, since it was reached due to a fairly random search, but it looks like merely mentioning "blogger" seems to be the "default" way not-specifically conservative sources tend to reference Mr. Breitbart. Should Wikipedia improve on this? I'm unsure. "Blogger" has the benefit of being very short, after all. And on Wikipedia, the term is bluelinked, so a reader can easily find out his other bonefides. However, I'm more than open to be convinced in some other direction. (Self-disclosure: Although I try to edit WP as neutrally as possible, I happen myself to be to the left of Obama, politically. So, read what you want to into that.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Can we get a picture of the genitalia under the controversy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There could be a straw poll on this but it seems unlikely. The image would need to meet WP:NFCC as it is non-free. It is easily available on Google, so there is no pressing need to add it. Also, adding the image could be seen as hyping up the controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The same should be said about the article headshot. We shouldn't be posing a poorly-lit off-color image of Weiner with a fake grimace when we have a perfectly nice foto of him. It reminds me of Time Magazine's treatment of O.J. Simpson. We don't need to make the man look ugly just because we think he may be guilty.μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment is in bad form and I wonder if you would consider self-reverting it. You're referring to a photo sourced to a government website that is apparently an official photo, and you are without any sincere editorial intent opining that you think he is grimacing, looks ugly, and that "we think he may be guilty". I think that's in exceptionally poor taste and would not be in violation were I to remove it myself as WP:FORUM. Comparing someone caught sexting outside of his marriage with someone convicted of double murder is another completely unnecessary and defamatory indulgence. We get that you don't like the congressman. A WP:BLP WP:TALK page is not for random insults about its subject. Abrazame (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner's official portrait on Commons (Anthony Weiner, official portrait, 112th Congress.jpg) is not the best image. The current infobox image (anthonyweiner.jpg) is the one that should be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See how Ian is able to say that without mentioning Hitler or Jack the Ripper? For the record, I agree with your choice of photos. Abrazame (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why anyone would prefer the official portrait. It is poorly lit and Weiner is grimacing. It would be used if it was the only free image available, but since anthonyweiner.jpg avoids these faults, it should be used in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Using the new picture amounts to an attack, an attempt to make the man look bad. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Police investigation of Weiner's tweets to a seventeen year old female

Link. Obviously sensitive issue so I figured I should raise here before including. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, this discussion belongs at Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is non-notable here, because the text says Weiner's interactions with the Delaware girl "were neither explicit nor indecent" (the girl was 17). It is notable that Weiner sent explicit material to other women without knowing them or establishing their ages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely not true. The text says: Weiner claims that the interactions "were neither explicit nor indecent". The police themselves have not made that same claim. And, in fact, the police are investigating it. And ... ummmm ... Weiner has been known to lie in a self-serving way in such matters ... no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

At the moment, Weiner deserves the benefit of the doubt on this. More of a problem is the alleged leak of the ready.JPG photo by Opie and Anthony in this tweet. The yfrog image has since been removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does he "deserve the benefit of the doubt"? If anything, that violates NPOV. How do we determine who does and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt ... and when exactly such benefit starts and ends? It it's notable and it's reported in reliable sources, then it's "fair game". The "benefit of the doubt" is a slippery slope and is inapplicable here in Wikipedia. That said, I think that this info belongs in Weiner's scandal article, not necessarily in this article. And, by the way, he is a proven (and admitted) self-serving liar. That fact right there should dismiss any "give him the benefit of the doubt" claims. He made that bed for himself to lie in. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Take it easy with the he made his bed statements - this is a BLP - nothing is being reported about this that is accusatory in any way about the subject - it is not illegal to talk to young people - we need to avoid the partisan titillation that such press reports as this are attempting to assert without any basis in fact. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So, I see that you didn't respond to any of my questions. Also, no one is claiming that it's illegal to text an underage girl. The incident is notable and reliably sourced. It's notable in the (larger) context of the texting scandal. And, as I said, it belongs in the scandal article ... not necessarily here in his bio. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

The article could mention the Delaware allegations, but they seem to fail WP:UNDUE at the moment. Weiner gave what amounted to a full confession in his June 6 press conference, anything else would need reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it warrants mention. The police are investigating it... so that's sufficient to justify at least a passing reference (I wonder if Weiner's investigator's are investigating it?). Weiner is certainly careful about his phraseology (when he even bothers to tell the truth). He says the weren't "explicit" or "indecent," but doesn't say they were non-sexual or appropriate. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this one. Enough of the truth has already come out that it has its own momentum. A lot more will be known in the next few days or weeks. John2510 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid news sources would love to be able to add that one of the girls was underage. However, even the Daily Mail (which has been hyping this to the max) accepts that there is no evidence that the contact with the 17 year old girl was inappropriate.[3] The big problem remains the alleged Opie and Anthony photo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree at the moment w/Ianmacm, but we should keep an eye on it to see if it develops into something more noteworthy.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns about the sentiment "Why does he 'deserve the benefit of the doubt?' if anything that violates NPOV".[4] Statements like that make it hard to assume good faith. Liberal Classic (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When I said this, it meant that there is no need to hype this part of the story unless evidence emerges that the contact with the 17 year old girl from Delaware was inappropriate/illegal. This seems unlikely to be the case, so there is no need to include it in the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies IanMacM, I was responding to Joseph above. Perhaps I should take this to Joesph's talk. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'm also a little concerned about Joseph's statement that Weiner is a "proven self-serving liar" because I feel this borders on libel. In the context of this scandal he admitted to lying, but I think it is different say he is an unqualified liar. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the thing to avoid here is "guilt by association". Because he sent lewd and salacious photos and text to some women, it does NOT logically follow that his communications with this teenager were inappropriate as well. He did say during his press conference that the *inappropriate* conversations were all with women who he believed to be adults. As reported, this young women did not claim to be older than she was, so there's an implied exclusion. --WriterIN (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Huge time-line gap in "Sexting Scandal" section

I noticed under the sexting scandal section that there is a noticeable gap between the time that news of the sexting to a 21 year old college girl first broke on May 27th, and June 6th, when Weiner finally admitted he'd been lying and falsely accusing others. Between those dates, Weiner spent around 10 days screaming at reporters, calling them names like "This jackass here," and claiming he'd been hacked and letting others blame Breitbart, etc. And he continued, during that time, to send text messages to at least one of the women, giving her advice on what to say, etc. Weiner's behaviors during that time should be mentioned to give context, as well as the fact that he finally came forward on June 6th after the other women came forward with explicit photos and text messages. As it reads now, it makes it appear that Weiner was silent during this 10 day interval between May 27th and June 6th, and that he came forward of his own volition to admit what he'd done. That is not accurate and does not reflect what has been reported in reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The controversy is believed to have begun at around 10.30 PM New York time on Friday 27 May 2011, when the underpants photo was posted on yfrog. It is notable that Weiner was initially adamant that his account had been hacked [5], which was denied by yfrog. This was the only occasion on which Weiner lied, and for the next ten days, he stonewalled and gave somewhat implausible answers to reporters' questions about why he could not say "with certitude" that the underpants photo was of him. This was classic non-denial denial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ian, during his whirlwind round of press interviews on Weds, June 1, he lied to representatives of virtually every major news outlet (in his congressional office, which may have implications for the House Ethics Committee investigation), by repeatedly insisting that he did not send the original photo. Between Friday, June 3 and Monday, June 6, reports of a second online relationship and and more graphic photos continued to accumulate[Multiple references. On Friday, June 3, a representative of one of the NYC television stations went to his office to ask him about the new allegations and Weiner's office staff called the police on her. ref {cite news | publisher CBS New York | first No | last Byline | title "Weiner’s Office Calls Police After CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer Asks For An Interview" | url http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/02/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitter-photo-time-to-get-back-to-work/} /ref Under mounting pressure and verifiable evidence that he lied, Weiner held his press conference on June 6 [Multiple refereences]. The "Jackass" comment was made to a television producer on the steps of Congress, June 1. ref {cite news | publisher ABCNews.com | first John R. | last Parkinson | title "Weiner Snaps, Calls Reporter Jackass" | url http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/31/weiner-snaps-calls-reporter-jackass} /ref. I don't have any timeline information on his communications with Ginger Lee where he urged her not to say anything about the two of them, but it certainly occurred between May 27 and June 6. Malke's observation that this period is largely unreported is correct.--WriterIN (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already said that due to reversion warring and the extraneous mentions of the scandal in multiple sections I would not be providing any more edits. While I'm pleased to see that the extraneous mentions have been removed (and I would never, ever, in a million years say "I told you so") I'm still not comfortable adding text to the article. Someone else might use the preceding paragraph and references as a starting point for a new NPOV entry.--WriterIN (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the part about which he lied (saying something publicly that he knew full well to be untrue) was that he did not send the yfrog photo. He gave a series of media interviews in which he said this, but was vague and implausible about whether the person in boxer briefs was him. Weiner's initial strategy was to tough it out and hope that the media attention died down, but when the Breitbart photos emerged he had no choice but to admit to what had happened. The problem for this article is how much detail to include. The deletion debate for Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is ongoing, and that article can afford to go into more detail, but a long section in his BLP would be undue weight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Ian. Within the context of THIS article, I agree.--WriterIN (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop showing us your weiner please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.207.245 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner and wiener jokes

A question about Congressman Weiner. The American slang "wiener," meaning a penis, comes from the sausage called a wiener, meaning a person or thing from Wien or Vienna, and it is spelt IE and pronounced VEENER. In German EI is pronounced "eye", so the Congressman's name Weiner (which is a fairly common German-Jewish name meaning a dealer in wine) should be pronounced WINE-ER, not WEENER. Why does he chose to pronounce it WEENER and leave himself open to silly penis jokes? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of violating "notaforum", your analysis of German pronunciation is accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is correct, why do so many people with names like Goldstein insist on it being pronounced like Gold-steen ?Eregli bob (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pelosi removed Weiner from working on any House committees" is not an accurate statement.

The last in the paragraph that leads the Wikipedia page for Anthony Weiner reads "Pelosi removed Weiner from working on any House committees." This sentence has no link to any news article and is not factually accurate. Rep. Pelosi has not stripped Rep. Weiner or any committee assignments yet. Rep. Cantor has made a call that Rep. Pelosi should consider stripping Rep. Weiner's committee assignments, but Rep. Weiner remains assigned to the committees he was originally assigned to at the beginning of the legislative session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.166.102 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi has relieved Anthony Weiner of his committee responsibilities for the duration of his leave.--WriterIN (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like she granted his request for a short leave of absence. But the indicated sentence sounds like something ... other. If she granted his leave, then that is fine to say, but we shouldn't make it sound as though she took away his ability to serve on committees.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Where the hell did the parking ticket story info go? I found it, and it's not good.

On June 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM User Abrazame removed two subsections from the article without gaining consensus. His notes in this discussion page on the deletions that one was duplicative (Treatment of staffers) and I partially agree, but disagree on NPOV.

He also removed the Parking Ticket subsection, with which I emphatically disagree. This was an issue affecting many Memebers of Congress, but Weiner was among, if not THE most egregious offenders. He handled it with class, actually paying for the tickets rather than claiming congressional priveledge, and made a notable statement at the time. This is a perfect example of NPOV, i.e., he did bad by not displaying proper ID on his vehicle, but he did good by paying up. This subhead belongs in the article. Before reverting, please discuss so we can have consensus. The original section read as follows:

===Parking tickets===

- On March 29, 2010, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Weiner had racked up $2,180 in parking tickets in Washington, D.C. between 2007 and 2010 and that all but one had yet to be paid before the release of the story. Some tickets included instances in which he appeared to have incurred multiple violations at the same time, such as failing to display current tags while parked in a taxi stand zone. A spokesman for his office stated that all the parking tickets had since, "been paid. He is pleased to have helped decrease the D.C. budget deficit." Weiner has criticized United Nations diplomats for failing to pay parking tickets in New York City, claiming foreign nations owed $18,000,000 to the city.

Additionally, there is a significant difference between the current edit on Treatment of Staffers and the edit Abrazame removed. This subsection needs to be integrated, old and new to provide NPOV. The current edit reads like a puff piece and the old one reads like a hatchet job. The new one reads as follows:

Weiner is known to be one of the most intense and demanding members of Congress. He often works long hours with his staff fact-checking documents, resulting in one of the highest staff turn-over rates of any member of Congress, including, at one point, three chiefs of staff in 18 months. Weiner admitted, "I push people pretty hard... I have nothing but love for people who endured it, even if they endured it for a short period of time."[18]

The old one reads as follows:

- ===Treatment of staffers===

- In July 2008, The New York Times printed a front page story on Weiner's demanding treatment of his staffers. The piece reported that Weiner frequently resorted to verbally abusing his staffers when he believed they had failed to perform their duties adequately, in addition to physically abusing his office furniture when upset. As a result of Weiner's demanding and intense nature, the Times reported that a "sizable number" of his staff members had resigned following "abbreviated stints." According to Congressional data at the time, Weiner had "presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years." Additionally, at the time of the report, about half of Weiner’s staff had been his employee for less than a year and since early 2007, he had gone through three chiefs of staff.

I suggest that both edits be present, with the old edit directly preceding the new one.--WriterIN (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please restore this information -- it should never have been removed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think its fine to reflect, if that is the consensus, but should probably be both tightened and combined into an existing or new section -- not noteworthy enough to have full sections on these ($400 in parking tickets a year? ... actually, I change my mind on that one ... I don't think its notable).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But it was not the consensus, and SPA User:WriterIN (and User:PlotSpoiler, and others) have the idea of how Wikipedia works entirely backward. They also mischaracterize my edit. The detail about working his assistants hard was already in the article, in the Congressional section. Some pointy POV editor(s) had added a two-paragraph section with its own subhead, and moved it into a "Controversies" section. I didn't simply remove the two paragraphs, I added two details in one and a half sentences to the earlier mention, doubling it in size, from

Weiner is known to be one of the most intense and demanding members of Congress. He often works long hours with his staff fact-checking documents, resulting in one of the highest staff turn-over rates of any member of Congress"

to

Weiner is known to be one of the most intense and demanding members of Congress. He often works long hours with his staff fact-checking documents, resulting in one of the highest staff turn-over rates of any member of Congress, including, at one point, three chiefs of staff in eighteen months. Weiner admitted, "I push people pretty hard... I have nothing but love for people who endured it, even if they endured it for a short period of time."

Particularly ironic to me is that both the original material and the new section were sourced to the same single source. So if anybody wanted to know more about this, they could then as now just click on the link and read the whole bloody article.

And if they had, they'd find that all these recent editors' treatments of the issue are highly biased. "Frequently resorted to verbally abusing" is not an accurate reading of the source. "Resorted" is an odd choice, and no variant of the word "abuse" appears in the source, a two-page article, neither in relation to staffers nor furniture. WriterIN uses the phrase twice in a single sentence, not only inaccurate but inartful and a cherry-picking bias against the subject. The man is said to slam the phone down at the end of some frustrating calls, to bang the desk with his fist for emphasis, both fairly common to Type-A Italians from Brooklyn in highly contentious jobs; and to kicking a chair, which may be out of the ordinary for many of us, but no, is not appropriate to single out and isolate on top of what's already here in a bio of this size. Similarly the piece notes his voice is louder and more animated than most in general so slightly elevated for him is yelling to a more subdued type. In short, it's a mitigated and somewhat balanced source despite its perspective on this one somewhat critical aspect, yet none of the recent editors choose a single bit of the praise, humor, and other mitigatory context in the source. But it's almost silly to, considering how unnecessary it is to elaborate on the thing to begin with. This goes to one aspect of his personality on the job, and to his administrative style, so I made the editorial judgement that a greater degree of inclusion was appropriate as biographical color. The editors who added it to begin with thought its inclusion was appropriate in its own subheaded section in a "Controversies" section.

The traffic ticket thing was similar — not exactly praise in that one, but mitigation. I still remember the source, Fox News, hardly a pro-Weiner organization, who volunteered the fact that all members of Congress are exempt from tickets received in the course of their government service.

I gave edit summaries for my edits, and then I posted a numbered, point-by-point rundown of the editorial justifications. That section was there for 10 days without a single disagreement, during which time these editors visited these pages and made other edits but completely ignored my thread. Today, the day the thread is archived, they raise this. In the future, WriterIN, if an editor reverts your work, take a look at the talk page and its archive to see if they gave a good reason — or said anything — before starting your own section as if you're bringing it up for the first time, rather than making the effort to respond to sound editorial judgement. Looking forward to your response this time around, 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do a little research before making inaccurate statements, Abrazame (talk). First of all, I did not provide *either* edit. I simply noted that they were missing and contradictory in tone, and properly belonged in the article in some merged NPOV form. As to making the edit then inviting discussion, I'll stand my ground here. That is NOT the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Only NEW text should be added without discussion. To delete or modify existing items without consensus is firing Round One of a 3RR, and I've already indicated I'll not play that partisan game. The only thing I'll agree with you on is that this should be a subsection under his congressional career section, but I reiterate, it belongs there, as well as the parking ticket issue. In fact, the parking ticket issue needs to be updated with the fact that he paid those tickets because his license plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle, not for his stated reason at the time.--WriterIN (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my proposed edit. If you (generalized you) like it, please go ahead and post.

=Treatment of Staffers=

In July 2008, The New York Times printed a front page story on Weiner's demanding treatment of his staffers. The piece reported that Weiner was known for yelling at his staffers when he believed they had failed to perform their duties adequately and physically abusing his office furniture when upset. As a result of Weiner's demanding nature, the Times reported that a "sizable number" of his staff members had resigned following "abbreviated stints." According to Congressional data at the time, Weiner had "presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years.". At the time of the report, about half of Weiner’s staff had been his employees for less than a year and since early 2007, he had gone through three chiefs of staff.. He often works long hours with his staff. Weiner admitted, "I push people pretty hard... I have nothing but love for people who endured it, even if they endured it for a short period of time."[Needs Ref]

=Parking Tickets and Vehicle Registration Issue=

On March 29, 2010, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Weiner had accumulated $2,180 in parking tickets in Washington, D.C. between 2007 and 2010 and that all but one had yet to be paid (before the release of the story). Some tickets included instances in which he appeared to have incurred multiple violations at the same time, such as failing to display current tags while parked in a taxi stand zone. A spokesman for his office stated that all the parking tickets had since "been paid. He is pleased to have helped decrease the D.C. budget deficit." While the parking tickets had been paid, on June 13, 2011 The New York Daily News reported that Rep. Weiner's license plates on his 20 year old Nissan Pathfinder had expired in 2006 and were not registered to that vehicle, but rather to another vehicle he owned at the time.

--WriterIN (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one else wants to provide the edit, I've broken my own rule and did it myself. There is a new sub-head within the U.S. Congressman heading entitled "Issues while in office". I have placed the "Treatment of staffers" edit above as well as the "Parking Tickets" edit. I also took it upon my self to move the "Sexting Scandal" into this newly created subhead area, where (to me at least), it makes greater contextual sense.--WriterIN (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal

"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate and yet no where in the article do i see it mentioned?!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner Now Busted for Unregistered Car and Expired License Plate--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NY Daily News Has New Shocking Claim Against Rep. Weiner: His Car Isn’t Registered--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just removed this opinionated comment - it at least requires discussion - sourced to one of the most scandalous publications for a big city that I have ever come across. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"plate"-gate

"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate.

• http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/anthony_weiner_17.php
• http://www.mediaite.com/print/ny-daily-news-has-new-shocking-claim-against-rep-weiner-his-car-isnt-registered

that the souce is from two tabloids = nothing since both his office AND the DMV are addressing the issue publically = therefore it is real!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is ever a real story worthy of encyclopedic repeating (a charge etc) we can add it then. Off2riorob (talk)

a charge is not required to get into wiki all that is required is that it is common knowledge which it is - everyone "knows" the sun will come up tomarrow - i dont need a charge to write it into wiki--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

i will thou concede that it might need to be worded differently - but to remove it is obvious democratic party censorship --70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was more considering policy and guidelines - the trivia of partisan politics is meaningless drivel to me. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, this is significant and ties directtly into the since-removed parking ticket scandal(?)/story(?)/incident(?). It now appears he paid those tickets himself BECAUSE those plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle. Needs to be re-inserted and updated.--WriterIN (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I left the part about paying the tickets because of the tag issue out in the proposed edit above as too POV and needing reference.--WriterIN (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how something that is merely a summary offense would be, according to the anonymous entry on this talk page would result in a resignation. In most states, having an incorrect license tag on a vehicle is only a summary offense. The maximum that could be upgraded from it would be to a misdemeanor. Still not a high crime or infamous offense! Wzrd1 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just doubled checked sources. He had the highest amount of unpaid tickets by some margin, and racked them up using license plates that didn't even belong on the vehicle over a 6 year period. If this weren't overshadowed by the sexting scandal, it would certainly have been a subject for another House ethics inquiry and a minor scandal on its own. My own opinion, but fairly well-informed.--WriterIN (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner has not resigned yet

Anthony Weiner has not resigned yet. A press conference is scheduled at Brooklyn after 1pm as per CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor t (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The conference is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. EDT. News leaks indicate that Weiner intends to resign today. If that happens, I believe we should eliminate the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal page and have an abridged version of the details on the Main page.Grahamboat (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Politician steps down and is replaced by another politician... big issue indeed. It could be perhaps nominated for a comment in the In the news section Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Weiner resigns, the news hype will fade. All the details of who said what need not be in the article. One sentence covering initial reports and denial, another covering admission, and another covering calls for resignation and the resignation itself would be sufficient. We need to write this article for the long-term. Look at the Chris lee article for guidelines. Grahamboat (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington will soon be Weiner-less.173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Now that it’s official, I stand by my comments above. Grahamboat (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting a bit before proposing a deletion of the other article. Past history suggests that you would have a better shot in a month or so, after the hubbub dies down and everybody moves onto the next scandal. That may or may not be consistent with Wikipedia "policies" and "guidelines" but it seems to be the way things work in practice. Neutron (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not "officially" resigned

I think it is premature to use phrases like "former Representative" as Rep. Weiner has not officially resigned, i.e. his letter of resignation has not been received by the House. Until that happens he remains the duly elected Representative from New York's 9th congressional district. Sources: [6] [7] 70.191.203.30 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this page, maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, be regarded as definitive? When a Representative resigns, the House has to reset the 'whole number' of the House in order for the various vote thresholds to be accurate, and no such determination was made at the sitting on 16 June. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The resignation letter was issued today, June 20. His resignation is effective at midnight June 21. JTRH (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviated scandal reference in lede after resignation

To whoever edited the lede to reduce the scandal reference to a single line: Bravo! Perfectly done. Concise, essential, NPOV. My metaphorical hat goes off to you.--WriterIN (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, A couple of lines. But still excellent.--WriterIN (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviated Scandal Reference is a Whitewash

The new "summary" is deliberately slanted to make Weiner sound like a victim and to omit confirmed, negative information. First, the 46-year-old Weiner admitted to having direct online contact with an underaged girl without her parents' knowledge (and they were upset about it), during the course of which he used a vulgar word for excretion. Second, the claim that he was allegedly "stalked" by fake accounts is not supported by the cited article, and the claim is utterly irrelevant insofar as Weiner never contacted, or was contacted by, the allegedly fake individuals. It is also well-documented that the very same "fake" individuals provided public statements to exonerate Weiner, so the insinuation that the the accounts were operated by adversaries of Weiner's who were "stalking" him is utterly unsubstantiated.

I would further suggest that citing the New York Times for any proposition in this article be prohibited. In the early stages of the scandal they ran a puff piece defending Weiner and his completely fictitous claim of hacking. They are a verifiably unreliable and prejudiced source for this particular subject matter. NeutralityPersonified (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)